Robin Wilkening, MD, MPH
314 East University Parkway
Baltimore, MD 21218

May 11, 2001

Congressman Jim Gibbons
100 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: HR 448

Dear Congressman Gibbons:

I would like to offer my continued encouragement and support of your efforts
regarding HR 448. Repeal of the Age 60 Rule is long overdue, particularly
in this time of burgeoning air travel and shortage of experienced pilots
that ALPA has acknowledged. I have often read the standard, time-worn, and
inaccurate comments routinely put forth by ALPA and APA in defense of the
Age 60 Rule and find them particularly disingenuous in light of what we know
about the unethical origin of the Rule, the demonstrated safety record of
older airline pilots, and the efforts, over the past four decades, to delay
appropriate study of older airline pilots.

As you well know, and as valid documents verify, the Age 60 Rule was never
intended to be a safety regulation. It was born of the unethical coupling
of the CEO of American Airlines and the first Administrator of the FAA to
further economic - not safety - goals. And it did just that, allowing
American to fire its older pilots in favor of hiring younger pilots who were
cheaper to train, and providing a nice post-retirement job for the
Administrator.

Interestingly, the Air Line Pilots Association vigorously attacked the Age
60 Rule during the first twenty years of its existence. Between the years
1959-1979 ALPA was committed to the rights of all pilots to remain employed,
and repeatedly challenged the FAA in court. These efforts failed, of
course, not because they were without merit, but rather because of the
carefully crafted position of the Rule under the governance of Section 601
of the Federal Aviation Administration Act.

When ALPA demographics changed in the 1970's with the introduction of young
pilots as flight engineers, ALPA's official position changed to reflect the
younger pilots' ambition to move swiftly to the left-hand seat. Whereas
once ALPA had championed the rights of all pilots to fly, they now reversed
their course and advocated for forced retirement of pilots at age 60, a
decision based on economics and not safety.

As you well know, the medical literature is replete with studies showing the
exceptional health and longevity of airline pilots worldwide compared to
general populations. It is well documented that the risk to passengers of
airline pilot incapacitation is negligible. There are valid and readily
available mechanisms in use today to document the flying skills and
cognitive abilities of pilots of all ages, though these are absolutely
denied to pilots age 60 and older because of the Age 60 Rule. Medical
testing programs, routinely used to return arguably unhealthy younger pilots
to flying status, are absolutely denied the healthy pilot age 60 or older
because of the Age 60 Rule.

In addition, the FAA's own studies show the excellent safety record of older
pilots. In 1993 the FAA's Hilton Study showed not even the slightest hint
of increased accident risk as a pilot approached age 60 and recommended that
the age could be increased to 63. In 2000 FAA researchers determined that
among pilots with an Air Transport Pilot rating and a Class 1 medical
certificate there was no difference in accident rate among any pilot age
group. The pilots aged 60-63 were as safe as any younger age group.

The Age 60 Rule is not a safety standard. It is age discrimination in
commercial aviation.

It is time for the United States to follow the lead of forward thinking
nations around the world who have broken through the arbitrary age 60
barrier. Your efforts in this regard are entirely appropriate.

Sincerely,

Robin Wilkening, MD, MPH